Gowdy said that while he regretted the personal ramifications of Petraeus sudden resignation over an extramarital affair, it would not stop Congress from hearing from him about the assault on the consulate that left four Americans dead.

The fact that hes resigned and had an affair has nothing to do with whether or not hes gonna be subpoenaed to Congress, Gowdy said on Fox News On the Record with Greta Van Susteren. I hope we dont have to subpoena a four-star general and the former CIA director, I hope he would come voluntarily, but if he wont he will be subpoenaed and none of what has happened today is a defense to a subpoena.

The CIA has come under sharp scrutiny in the wake of the Benghazi attacks. Petraeus had been slated to testify Thursday at closed congressional hearings before the House and Senate intelligence committees, but acting CIA Director Michael Morell is now expected to take his place.

Theres no way we can get to the bot of Benghazi without David Petraeus, Gowdy said. While he might not be around next week because hes got personal matters, the week after that and the week after that, this excuse will run stale.

have him testify on the threat that We The People of the US will have him castrated if he refuses to do so. Hey if they (Us Government) want Sharia Law than lets give them the equivalent Sharia Law or sometimes better kown as Old Testament Law. Let’s utilize on politicians and government imbeciles as the guinea pigs. see how it works on the few and the proud idiots that cannot abide by the Rule of Law.

LT. COL. RALPH PETERS: The timing is just too perfect for the Obama administration. Just as the administration claimed it was purely coincidence that our Benghazi consulate was attacked on the anniversary of September 11th. Now its purely coincidence that this affair — extra-marital affair — surfaces right after the election, not before, but right after, but before the intelligence chiefs go to Capitol Hill to get grilled. As an old intelligence analyst, Neil, the way I read this — I could be totally wrong, this is my interpretation — is that the administration was unhappy with Petraeus not playing ball 100% on their party-line story. I think it’s getting cold feet about testifying under oath on their party-line story. And I suspect that these tough Chicago guys knew about this affair for a while, held it in their back pocket until they needed to play the card.

I don’t like conspiracy theories, I may be totally wrong, but the timing of this, again, right after the election and right before Petraeus is supposed to get grilled on Capitol Hill, it’s really smells.

My gut tells me this ends up with the CIA basically telling any Congressional investigative committee to go f*** itself and the proceed to stonewalling. End of story.

There is an alternative....closed-door, off-the-record hearings, with the testimony classified as “National Security” and all those involved forbidden to publicly disclose the results under penalty of law. That’s actually a distinct possibility.

14
posted on 11/10/2012 11:48:41 AM PST
by AnAmericanAbroad
(It's all bread and circuses for the future prey of the Morlocks.)

Petraeus fell on his sword for his CIC. That's kind of the feeling I get as well. I think if he does testify, it's just gonna be, "Gee, you know, sorry guys, but that's national security. Can't talk it about. Hey....how 'bout them Giants this year, huh? One hell of a team!"

18
posted on 11/10/2012 11:55:50 AM PST
by AnAmericanAbroad
(It's all bread and circuses for the future prey of the Morlocks.)

I don’t think immunity is the issue. The CIA would cite “national security” as an excuse for not allowing him to reveal classified information. That excuse would not work in a closed session, but then we the general public would not learn what happened.

I think it is clear that the regime waited until after the election and then started the purge. They now have a choice position with which they can reward one of their loyalists. The larger question now is: What will Petraeus say in his testimony? I think they need to have a closed session and ensure he can discuss classified, otherwise he may not be able to say much. That may be what the 0bama regime is counting on.

20
posted on 11/10/2012 12:06:23 PM PST
by The Sons of Liberty
(Never Underestimate the Power of Evil or Evil Doers)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.